Denny v. Ostrander

Decision Date15 October 1912
Docket NumberCase Number: 3823
Citation33 Okla. 622,127 P. 390,1912 OK 621
PartiesDENNY v. OSTRANDER.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court
Syllabus

¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR--Defect of Parties--Dismissal. Where, in an action for a broker's commission against two defendants, judgment is entered against one and in favor of the other, and the former attempts to appeal, his codefendant is a necessary party; and where he is not made a party on appeal the cause will on motion be dismissed.

T. G. Cutlip and Win. Beatty, for plaintiff in error.

F. H. Reily, for defendant in error.

DUNN, J.

¶1 This case presents error from the superior court of Pottawatomie county. It is an action instituted in the said court by P. W. Ostrander against R. A. Denny and L. E. Denny to recover a broker's commission, which, it is alleged, defendants agreed to pay to the plaintiff to sell or exchange for them a certain stock of goods. On a trial had, the following judgment was entered:

"It is therefore ordered and decreed by the court that the plaintiff, P. W. Ostrander, do have and recover of and from R. A. Denny the sum of $ 391.28, with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent. per annum from this date, and all costs of this suit, taxed at $ 16.30; and it is further ordered that the said plaintiff take nothing as against the defendant L. E. Denny, and that he be in all things discharged, with his costs."

¶2 From this judgment the defendant R. A. Denny has sought to lodge an appeal in this court without making his codefendant; L. E. Denny, a party, either plaintiff or defendant in error. Counsel for plaintiff, on July 16, 1912, filed a motion to dismiss the cause for the reason that L. E. Denny was a necessary party to the appeal. Under the uniform holding of this court, the appeal must be dismissed. In the case of Ft. Smith & Western R. Co. v. Wilson, ante, 124 P. 948, judgment was entered in the trial court as follows:

"It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the plaintiff have and recover of the defendant the Ft. Smith & Western Railroad Company the sum of $ 500, and his costs of this action duly expended, and that the defendant St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company have and recover of the plaintiff its costs in this action duly expended, and let execution issue accordingly."

¶3 From this judgment the Ft. Smith & Western Railroad Company sought to appeal without making the St. Louis & San Fran- cisco Railroad Company a party, and this court, in the consideration thereof, said:

"In the case at bar the plaintiff asserted a joint cause of action against both railroad companies as connecting carriers. The jury found that the damage was due to the negligence of the Ft. Smith & Western Railroad Company, and not that of the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company;
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • City of Sapulpa v. Young, Case Number: 20699
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 20 Enero 1931
    ...City. M. & O. R. Co. v. Williams, 33 Okla. 202, 124 P. 63; Ft. Smith & W. R. Co v. Wilson, 33 Okla. 280, 124 P. 948; Denny v. Ostrander, 33 Okla. 622, 127 P. 390; Chickasha Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Bezdicheck, 33 Okla. 688, 126 P. 821; Gwinnup v. Griffins, 34 Okla. 117, 124 P. 1091; C. R.......
  • Chi., R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Austin
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 10 Octubre 1916
    ...109; K. C., M. & O. R. Co. v. Williams, 33 Okla. 202. 124 P. 63; Ft. S. & W. R. Co. v. Wilson, 33 Okla. 280, 124 P. 948; Denny v. Ostrander, 33 Okla. 622, 127 P. 390; Chickasha Lt., Ht. & P. Co. v. Bezdicheck, 33 Okla. 688, 126 P. 821. ¶16 In Humphrey et al v. Hunt, 9 Okla. 196, 59 P. 971, ......
  • Scott v. Amis
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 31 Diciembre 1928
    ...City, M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 33 Okla. 202, 124 P. 63; Ft. Smith & W. Ry. Co. v. Wilson, 33 Okla. 280, 124 P. 948; Denny v. Ostrander, 33 Okla. 622, 127 P. 390; Chickasha Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Bezdicheck, 33 Okla. 688, 126 P. 821; Gwinnup v. Griffins, 34 Okla. 117, 124 P. 1091; C.......
  • City of Lawton v. Burnett
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 1 Abril 1919
    ...109; K. C., M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Williams 33 Okla. 202, 124 P. 63; Ft. S. & W. Ry. Co. v. Wilson, 33 Okla. 280, 124 P. 948; Denny v. Ostrander, 33 Okla. 622, 127 P. 390; Mann et al. v. Mann, 70 Okla. 30, 172 P. 777. ¶4 We deem it unnecessary to discuss the question further, as the cases cited......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT